What Makes One System Better Than Another?

[Umbran]

I was trying to get at, for you, why do you have a preference for the system(s) you do? Several of you have done this, and I thank you for that.

Thing is, I don't have a very consistent game-style. What I want out of the game changes from campaign to campaign. Since the goals vary so much, I find it hard to generalize.

For example, for your typical fantasy, I tend to use D&D. I prefer 3e because it has a goodly number of fiddly bits, to support a lot of detail in long-term campaign play.

But, when I'm running a supers game, I tend to like a game that is more rules-light, and I usually go with old FASERIP Marvel Superheros.

So, I can't say I like specifically rules-light, or rules-heavy. It depends on what I want at the time. Same goes for many other aspects of play.

 

[Cadfan]

1. It should accomplish what it sets out to accomplish without bogging down the game in things it doesn't accomplish well.

2. It should acknowledge that all RPGs come with an entirely adequate default "Player/DM's judgment" rule, and all divergences from that rule should occur in situations in which it is the designer's considered opinion that whatever rule they are putting in place instead of Player/DM judgment is an actual improvement.

3. Its not enough to follow rule 2, you have to follow it in light of rule 1.

 

[rogueboy]

For most of us, the "task" is implicitly defined, roughly as "running games I like to play" We get into a lot of disagreement there, because what I like to play is not what you like to play. We treat those implicit assumptions as objective truths, but they generally aren't.

So, tell me the type of game you like to play, and then we can talk about what would make a system better or worse at doing it.

My current goal is to modify a current system or build a new system, depending on the amount of changes that would be required, to support the campaign that I'm trying to get started. My hope (which I've discussed with my players) is that the game will focus on role-playing and character/plot development, but will still include a fair amount of combat. The challenge is that one of the players loves combat and playing the rules to maximize damage, but doesn't really enjoy roleplaying, while another player is the exact opposite (rules get in the way, and combats are a necessary evil, at best). The third player (and myself) enjoy a mix of combat and roleplaying, and the fourth (final) player is new to RPGs entirely and has a deep hatred of math (as the third player puts it, "she uses a calculator for 5 + 3"). My campaign is set is a fairly traditional fantasy (D&D-style) world, and while I used D&D 3.x and 4e for some of the initial flavor and options, I have migrated away from system-specifics for the later world-building, and have no need to go back to D&D as the final (base) system, although 2 of us have an extensive knowledge of 3.x and 2 more of us have a fair amount of knowledge of 3.x (so using 3.x can draw on that knowledge). Hopefully that covers enough to get a more focused discussion going on, although I am enjoying reading through the thoughts people are posting, and plan to discuss it with a friend and player (#3 from above). Let me know if there's some other piece of information that would help focus things.

1. It should accomplish what it sets out to accomplish without bogging down the game in things it doesn't accomplish well.

Is there anything, in your mind, that a system should *always* accomplish? For a medieval (D&D-style) fantasy game? For some other genre?

 

[Wik]

Very good question, and one that will get a dozen different answers from half a dozen posters.

My own take on it:

1) Expansions that build on the core. I realized recently that I like games that add to the existing rules, rather than add onto them. For example, to use a 4e reference, I like martial power more than the PHB 2, because Martial power gives me expansions on an existing product. This came from when I started looking at Earthdawn - the "splats" gave more world detail, and maybe a few new classes, but it mostly just added more and more detail to what had already been described, and I like that. (It's one of the things I like about DARK SUN, too)

2) Character Creation. I love games where I can make a PC quickly, but where I know my choices matter. I also love games where you have to make sacrifices and tough calls in character creation - for example, Savage Worlds doesn't really give you enough points to make uber characters, and I find that a lot of fun.

3) Simulationist Leanings. I prefer more simulationist games - for reasons I've stated elsewhere (essentially, if I wanted something "gamist", I'd turn on my xbox... but that's a personal opinion). So, I like seeing rules-light systems that are attached to fairly detailed settings (or implied settings).

4) Versatility. I enjoy games where I can envision something, and have the rules cover it with little difficulty. Games that do this really well, in my book, are the d6 system (especially WEG's Star Wars), Savage Worlds, and - surprisingly to me - Fourth Edition.

5) Games with settings that actually encourage game play. For example, Mechwarrior is a great world, but it makes for a poor RPG. Unless you get the PCs out of their mechs... and then, the game world just seems poorer because of it. I haven't played the new Mechwarrior, though, so maybe it's changed.

6) The game has to be easy to pick up. If the rules are too hard, I don't like it. If the setting has too much information you "need" to know, I won't run it. For example, Shadowrun is a game where there is so much information (in terms of rules and in what gear can do in the world), that PCs just can't keep track of it all. Unless the whole group consists of players well-versed in the rules who also know a big chunk of the game world, Shadowrun doesn't fit.

 

[Andor]

What makes a good system?

A system should do 2 things.

It should portray the world it intends to portray. [e.g. D&D (any edition) does not portray a world where high level heros are intimidated by generic guards with crossbows. If you want guards with crossbows to give your heroes pause, play something else.]

It should stay out of the way of the game. If I spend so much time tracking woozyness due to bloodloss vs clotting factors cross-referenced to bloodtype and martial arts stance that I forget about the bomb in the briefcase, your system has failed.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

It should stay out of the way of the game. If I spend so much time tracking woozyness due to bloodloss vs clotting factors cross-referenced to bloodtype and martial arts stance that I forget about the bomb in the briefcase, your system has failed.

*Throws his homemade system in a fire*

 

[Wombat]

I was under the impression you like Harn rather than HarnMaster. What, no DND love?

I like the HarnMaster system as well, although Harn-as-Harn is one of the great systemless settings in existence

And as for D&D ... well, I can certainly play it, especially a heavily cobbled together D&D 3.Wombat...

 

[Thanael]

My current goal is to modify a current system or build a new system, depending on the amount of changes that would be required, to support the campaign that I'm trying to get started. My hope (which I've discussed with my players) is that the game will focus on role-playing and character/plot development, but will still include a fair amount of combat. The challenge is that one of the players loves combat and playing the rules to maximize damage, but doesn't really enjoy roleplaying, while another player is the exact opposite (rules get in the way, and combats are a necessary evil, at best). The third player (and myself) enjoy a mix of combat and roleplaying, and the fourth (final) player is new to RPGs entirely and has a deep hatred of math (as the third player puts it, "she uses a calculator for 5 + 3"). My campaign is set is a fairly traditional fantasy (D&D-style) world, and while I used D&D 3.x and 4e for some of the initial flavor and options, I have migrated away from system-specifics for the later world-building, and have no need to go back to D&D as the final (base) system, although 2 of us have an extensive knowledge of 3.x and 2 more of us have a fair amount of knowledge of 3.x (so using 3.x can draw on that knowledge). Hopefully that covers enough to get a more focused discussion going on, although I am enjoying reading through the thoughts people are posting, and plan to discuss it with a friend and player (#3 from above). Let me know if there's some other piece of information that would help focus things.

I wager much of the solutions to your problems or the way to achieve your goal does not lie in the modification or choice of the RPG rules system but rather in the campaign and group building dynamics.

Have you read about the 4 stages of a RPG group? Very enlightening.

chattydm » The 4 stages
cheetoism / Stages of Group Development
cheetoism / Introduction (aka Why Gaming Groups F*** Up )

 

[Engilbrand]

Mournblade, allow me to clarify the Paladin bit. I remember reading last year about someone in a game where a person created a Paladin of the Raven Queen. He then decided that the character would only fight with 2 daggers, and would refuse to heal dying party members. He used this for justification that the rules sucked, because this character sucked. That's not a valid concept within the rules. If the concept is "Religious warrior of the Raven Queen who fights with twin daggers", then there are certain mechanical routes that can be taken to make that a valid concept. I honestly don't consider it valid. Can you do it? Sure. But it's not a concept. It's just mechanics.
When 4e came out, I had friends complain about the fact that you couldn't have a Fighter wield two weapons to good effect. (This was true up to a point, especially before the Tempest.) I told them that what they wanted to play was a Ranger. Why? Because the focus was on the dual weapon fighting, while they were getting stuck on the class name. Concepts are different from mechanics.

FATAL isn't valid because, as I said, it's the gaming equivalent of self-mutilation. Are there some people who partake joyfully in it? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's a good and valid thing.

 

[Dragonbait]

Now that I've played through multiple systems of D&D along with a number of other games I've discovered that I like games that:

Simple over complexity. There -is- a point where the game becomes too simple (Fuzion lite, for example) but I've found that I really like most actions to be able to be resolved within 1 or 2 rolls. If I have to roll to use a weapon, then roll to hit, then wait for the enemy to roll to defend, then I roll for damage and then wait for the enemy to resist damage EACH ACTION then the game is too bogged down for me. I like to keep things moving.

Games that people play together. In general, D&D is pretty good about giving everyone something to do every round. I don't like games where most of the action for each hour focuses on one character. When I played Shadowrun, for instance, The first hour of the game was the hacker's hour, the second hour was the sneaky character's hour, the third hour was the gun bunny's hour and so on. It got boring. Yes, it could have been the GM, but I've spoken to fans of Shadowrun and they said that that was pretty normal.

Simulationist vs. Abstract. Never sure where I fell into on that one, but I think I'm more of an abstract gamer (or Gamist gamer). Keeping track of Endurance, hit points, mental points, and ongoing effects becomes too cumbersome for me.

In the end, I get frustrated when a game slows down because of the system. I only like it when games slow down because of the role-playing.